|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-26-08 | | Alphastar: A very interesting ending. Tablebase, anyone? |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | fromoort: I'll have one, thanks. |
|
Jul-26-08
 | | Peligroso Patzer: <Alphastar: A very interesting ending. Tablebase, anyone?> Here's a link to the on-line Nalimov tablebases: http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=... 88. Rd7 was the losing move. There were no fewer than eight (8) drawing moves here, including a rook move to any of the three safe (unattacked) squares on the c-file (c1, c5 or c8). |
|
Jul-26-08
| | Peligroso Patzer: BTW, at moves 88-90, Dominguez found three consecutive "only" winning moves. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | YouRang: The tablebase loser was 88.Rd7?, allowing black to immediately threaten mate with 88.Kc2. Watching the game, I thought white would have been better off keeping his rook on the h-file. For instance, he should have played 83.Rh5+ and keep checking from the opposite side. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | Resignation Trap: According to Shredder Tablebase http://www.shredderchess.com/online... , Onischuk's losing move came here: 
click for larger view White played the losing 88.Rd7? which allows 88...Kc2! and Black will soon force mate. White had a number of moves to draw, such as 88.Rc8 or 88.Ka1. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | drmariogodrob: <Peligroso> If it were me--and I grant that I'm not terribly bright--I'd say that 90. Kc3 seems to win also. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | niemzo: Kc3 is followed by Rc7 and draw. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | Marmot PFL: What a colossal blunder. I saw Finegold draw this once, but he had the extra knight. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | drmariogodrob: <niemzo> Yes, yes...for some reason you're saying that after Ra6+, black can play Kb5 because the rook is no longer on the b-file. Chess blindness is a harsh mistress. Thanks. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | maxfrank: Wow! I was surprised to see Dominguez up in the rankings. It looks like Onischuk needed tablebase. And Dominguez still had 2 more moves to spare out of the 50 alotted (since this is a theoretical draw I assume this is not one of the exceptions) |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | 4tmac: IMHO I have to agree with <YouRang>. If black would have missed his chance by 88. ... K-c3?! <drmariogodrob> 
click for larger view white can draw by R-e7,f7,g7,h7 (get back to the h-file!). R-c7+?! loses to N-c6! Why do I let these TB do this to me? |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | messachess: What a treat this game is to study: a great game and teaches you how win with K,R,N vs. K,R--great. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | TheBB: <maxfrank> There are no exceptions any more. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | cade: <And Dominguez still had 2 more moves to spare out of the 50 alotted> Actually he had 12 moves left since Black took a White pawn on move 53. |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | 4tmac: 
click for larger view This is from the famous Polgar-Kasparov 1996 game. The only move to draw(!) was R-f1+. White needed to keep the Rook on this side to draw but it seems to me (like I know) she was not sure of the long side and played R-a1?! The Rook got stuck on the a-file instead of the 1st-rank and she lost. This ending isn't as difficult as the R+B vs. R but I'm starting to think it's close. |
|
Jul-26-08
 | | kamalakanta: Any ranking points Lenier gets from this one are well deserved, I say! |
|
| Jul-26-08 | | Alphastar: A future tuesday level position after 88. Rd7. |
|
| Jul-27-08 | | Zonszein: Capablanca was world champion at 33.
Dominguez is only 25, mmmm.
|
|
| Jul-27-08 | | Gilmoy: Interesting dynamic at 33.g4 -- White is stuck on K-side with no real threats, while Black's Rc6 is paralyzing the entire Q-side. 34..Ng6! is a boggling long-range threat on Black's b2-pawn, and White can't untangle his pieces to defend it. Note that Kf1/Rg2 isn't enough, as Black still has Nxa3 overworking b2. |
|
| Jul-27-08 | | znprdx: How important is it "to play out a game of Chess to its very end"? That is like asking to distinguish/ differentiate the athletic merits of a sprinter vs. a marathoner. Well as one who lost more of my 'won games' than I care to recall - I guess I'm not well suited to argue against this..... However there is something sadly cheap and hollow about such an absurd victory. It reduces to the equally cheap 'touch piece' rule or winning a game on time without increments. Given that the 50-move rule is itself rather arbitrary the issue reduces to RESPECT for one's opponent - especially at this level – which is the normal standard. Playing on yesterday past the time control at move 40 was bad for Chess because there was ONLY the possibility of a blunder which could decide the game. There was next to no value playing it out. I am curious as to whether or not L D-P refused a draw offer... On the other hand we must not overlook the tenacity Carlsen has shown by playing out a couple of Bishops of opposite color positions ...which had some fine points worthy of the effort. Worse I suppose was to leave the world hanging like in Kramnik-Anand
After 41.Ra8+ FIDE World Championship Tournament 2007 (game 37 chessgames.com) But as I posted then: “Perhaps even at the highest levels of competition when the choice tree suddenly seems to paradoxically expand rather than contract, opting for a draw can in fact be honorable in the face of increasing risk.” |
|
| Jul-27-08 | | madlydeeply: Odd debate. it is "bad" for chess because Dominguez played it out. a blunder on move 88 has "marred" the entire Biel tournament and all the tournament praxis in the history of sport. I suppose it is a debate between those who wish to see perfection in chess and those who wish to see competition in chess. Well good luck on your quest for perfection, Chess Scientists! Turn a sour face on every game that has a flaw! (meaning EVERY game of chess...) Demean any player that dares claim a win, marring those perfect draws that we all long to see! Chess should be a realm of politeness, so we should definitely exclude the fighters and brawlers...like Tal, Fischer, SuperNezh! Such squalid hacks who deem it necessary to pressure their opponents with sloppy complications in hopes of a blunder...Bah. Maybe you are too good for chess, Chess Scientist! Maybe Chess is too crass a game! A game for the hoi polloi! |
|
Jul-27-08
 | | chancho: Onischuk had to prove he had the necessary endgame technique to draw this ending, and he failed to do so. Congrats to Dominguez, who was very determined, and was duly rewarded for his effort. The one positive from this for Onischuk, is that he wont fall into the same mistake, (should he play this ending again in the near future) as he no doubt learned a great deal from this game. And quite frankly, it's good to know that these top players are still finding that they don't know everything about the royal game, and can still aspire to improve themselves even further. |
|
| Jul-27-08 | | s4life: <znprdx: However there is something sadly cheap and hollow about such an absurd victory.> Why play chess at all then? as some suggest with perfect play, the game will end up a draw or at least white cannot lose. To continue playing from
the initial position is to be disrespectful to either player. |
|
| Jul-27-08 | | Alphastar: <However there is something sadly cheap and hollow about such an absurd victory. It reduces to the equally cheap 'touch piece' rule or winning a game on time without increments. Given that the 50-move rule is itself rather arbitrary the issue reduces to RESPECT for one's opponent - especially at this level – which is the normal standard.> Why? If you're on the defensive and you can only hope to draw the game in endgames like these, it is up to you to prove it's drawn. Lenier Dominguez could play for a win without any risk whatsoever. Onischuk blundered at the end so he didn't deserve the draw. This has nothing to do with 'respect'; there are similar endgames which are drawn with perfect play but where the defence is quite hard so the superior side has everything to gain by playing on. Such as the rook vs knight endgame. Also, what is 'cheap' about the 'touch piece' rule or winning a game on time without increments? The former simply exists to keep players from constantly fiddling with the pieces, and the latter is simply bad time managment by the losing side. Both players agree with the time-controls beforehand (or they wouldn't be playing in the first place) so it makes no sense to say that losing on time is 'cheap'. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
